Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

And once again, I refer to my signature. Independence supporters really need to stop humouring hb's polling obsession. He's already himself in the now deleted other thread admitted that the polls are meaningless right now.

[Jie Bie]

Thing is.. that saw the majority position underplayed. The 1997 ref was a foregone conclusion. Everyone knew the result long before the actual vote.

Did everyone really know the result of the tax varying powers question "long before the actual vote"? The polls were suggesting it could "go either way", although the actual result went in favour of the proposal by 63 to 36 points. I would say that is a pretty convincing majority by anyones standards, and a surprising one given the results of the polls in the lead up to the referendum.

This is a different dynamic because the significant majority position is No. And its not as exciting voting to keep the union as it is to vote for a shiny new parliament.

A "significant majority" would be 63-36. Recent polls show that No is in the lead by around 47-35. Not sure how you make that a "significant majority". Unless you think that the don't knows won't bother voting...

I have no doubts that the end result, which we all know will be a very comfortable win for No will be closer than polling data suggests because No voters wont bother their arse to go vote. I cant be sure i will either. Depends what I'm doing that day.

Right... So you are saying that the end result will be a "very comfortable win for No", but also that it will be "one which will be closer than the polling data suggests".

The implication is that if you were seeing polls in the lead up to the referendum which predicted a 60-40 win for No then you would expect the final result to something like 55-45 in favour of No.

But what if the polling data in the weeks before the referendum were to show Yes and No on level pegging? Or is that impossible?

[Jie Bie]

And once again, I refer to my signature. Independence supporters really need to stop humouring hb's polling obsession. He's already himself in the now deleted other thread admitted that the polls are meaningless right now.

Indeed, but it is an interesting topic nonetheless - and it's not like H_B is the only person reading the thread...

[Ad Lib]

No it isn't. If you have one side pumping out lie after lie, and the other side rolling over and meekly accepting it, then what you have is people saying "no smoke without fire". Having even a small voice prepared to fight back stops the liars having it all their own way.

Ill be interested to see ad libs list of falsehoods.

At work just now, but immediate ones that spring to mind include presenting Scheffer's opinions as credible, denying that Chelsea Manning is a woman, misrepresenting Panelbase's polling finding, misrepresenting the position in relation to the EU, currency unions and more.

Duh

He was talking about 'wings'

why does he think that should be neutral

I don't think he should or can be neutral. I think he should try to write like he isn't an angsty teenager with an attitude problem and attempt not to deliberately be partisan and extreme simply "because the big boys are pure nasty". He's entirely entitled to be brazenly partisan but he can't then expect people to think his "contribution" to the debate is worthwhile.

ETA: still it's a nice aside to know that you care so much about me that you've gone back more than 4 years to find a quote from me relating to independence when my views have completely changed on the matter as of almost two years ago.

Those results suggest to me that if the referendum were held tomorrow then at least one third of the electorate who would vote Yes and make Scotland an independent country. Not enough to win the referendum, but a pretty significant minority nonetheless.

But of course, the referendum isn't tomorrow, it is just over a year away. The vast majority of no voters I come across are willing to be convinced, and I think that as the campaign heads towards a conclusion we will see a surge of support for Yes. This isn't just a "feeling" - it is backed by history.

One week before the 1997 referendum the Herald commissioned System 3 / ICM to carry out a poll with a sample size of 1039. The poll asked both questions that were going to be put to the electorate.

Here are the results of the poll:

Should there be a Scottish Parliament: YES - 61% NO - 23% DON'T KNOW - 16%

Should it have tax varying powers: YES - 47% NO - 32% DON'T KNOW - 21%

Now lets take a look at the actual results of the referendum:

Should there be a Scottish Parliament: YES - 74% NO - 26%

Should it have tax varying powers: YES - 63.5% NO - 36.5%

Now just take a look at those increases in the YES votes for both questions,13 and 16 point jumps, and that was over the space of 1 week! To me that is a pretty damning indictment that when you offer the people of Scotland more powers they take it - even if polls in the run up to the vote suggest it might be close run thing (as they did with the tax varying powers).

You do realise that simply making the undecided voters go "with trend" of decided voters puts those polls broadly with the final outcome, right? Only the tax power question saw a meaningful bump (of about 3-4%).

For the first question, splitting the undecideds in a ratio of 61:23 produces straight Yes/No figures of 73% and 27%.

For the second question, splitting the undecideds in a ratio of 47:32 produces straight Yes/No figures of 59.5% and 40.5%.

[Ad Lib]

A "significant majority" would be 63-36. Recent polls show that No is in the lead by around 47-35. Not sure how you make that a "significant majority". Unless you think that the don't knows won't bother voting...

This is the interesting thing. I'm sure I read a piece by John Curtice from a couple of weeks back talking about the Panelbase poll in July, which suggested that undecided voters are leaning about 3:1 in favour of a No vote.

[H_B]

It is an interesting topic. Sorry, im on my phone so i cant respond to your posts in as much detail as id like.

Your first figure is most likely the right one. The 12 point lead for No is only amongst the knows. If you extrapolate that out you get a No vote of 60 and a Yes vote of 40. Assuming the dont knows follow the same pattern as the knows.

It is likely, in my opinion, that the pre ref polls this time next year will show something around the 10 mark in terms of a No lead.

[Jie Bie]

You do realise that simply making the undecided voters go "with trend" of decided voters puts those polls broadly with the final outcome, right? Only the tax power question saw a meaningful bump (of about 3-4%).

For the first question, splitting the undecideds in a ratio of 61:23 produces straight Yes/No figures of 73% and 27%.

For the second question, splitting the undecideds in a ratio of 47:32 produces straight Yes/No figures of 59.5% and 40.5%.

It's a good point and shows that the Yes campaign has a lot of work to do. Although I am sure they are under no illusions of that themselves.

The two points I would make are:

1 - Yes already have a third of the electorate indicating they are likely to vote for them, I'd say that gives them a fantastic base to work from over the next twelve months. As I said though, plenty of work to do.

2 - When the people of Scotland have been offered more powers at the ballot box they have always said Yes in the past. I accept that the independence referendum is the ultimate test of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the willingness of the Scottish people to look after our own affairs won through in the end - especially with politicians of the calibre of Cameron, Clegg and Milliband running the show in Westminster.

This is the interesting thing. I'm sure I read a piece by John Curtice from a couple of weeks back talking about the Panelbase poll in July, which suggested that undecided voters are leaning about 3:1 in favour of a No vote.

Not exactly unexpected (No is usually the default position for someone who hasn't given it a great deal of thought) but most undecided people I speak to are willing to be convinced.

[Davi3j]

ETA: still it's a nice aside to know that you care so much about me that you've gone back more than 4 years to find a quote from me relating to independence when my views have completely changed on the matter as of almost two years ago.

HaHa, dont flater yourself, I came accross that quote while looking for somthing else ( unconected to yourself)...I just thought It was a fitting reminder of where your views stem from

[Ad Lib]

HaHa, dont flater yourself, I came accross that quote while looking for somthing else ( unconected to yourself)...I just thought It was a fitting reminder of where your views stem from

But my views don't stem from that. I changed my position completely on the independence issue and now actively campaign in favour of it.

[xbl]

At work just now, but immediate ones that spring to mind include presenting Scheffer's opinions as credible, denying that Chelsea Manning is a woman, misrepresenting Panelbase's polling finding, misrepresenting the position in relation to the EU, currency unions and more.

1. They are credible. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they are not credible.

2. Where did he say that on Wings?

3. "misrepresenting Panelbase's polling finding"? I look forward to seeing evidence on this.

4. "misrepresenting the position in relation to the EU, currency unions and more". I also look forward to seeing evidence on this later on.

Incidentally, if an independence supporter had made the post you made, you would have exploded in fury.

[H_B]

In what way are sheffer's views credible?

[xbl]

In what way are sheffer's views credible?

Remember when you said he was a nobody?

Remember when you said he didn't even work with international law?

Remember when you said he had never done anything relevant to Scotland?

Remember when you said you knew more about international law than him?

No, of course you don't. Much like your fellow Unionists, I'm simply going to laugh at your levels of fail.

[Davi3j]

In what way are sheffer's views credible?

Scheffers view >>

an independent Scotland would share equal status with the remainder of the UK and would enjoy EU membership as a co-successor state

labour MEPs blocked report on "the consequences of the secession of the territory of a member state for its membership of the European Union". Clicky

Mr Martin believed that the report would suggest that an independent Scotland would have to apply for re-entry into the EU, and intended to use it in next year's referendum campaign in order to attack pro-independence claims on EU membership.

However the report was blocked after the president of the European Parliament, German Social Democratic MEP Martin Schulz, and the Austrian MEP Hannes Swoboda, President of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the Parliament, ceded to pressures from other members of the Progressive Alliance and refused permission for the Labour MEP to carry out the study.

it was unlikely to state unequivocally that Scotland or Catalonia would lose their EU membership

This pust at least some doubt on the unionist views of EU entry, therefore giving some credibility to Scheffers views, on EU membership at least

[Ad Lib]

1. They are credible. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they are not credible.

2. Where did he say that on Wings?

3. "misrepresenting Panelbase's polling finding"? I look forward to seeing evidence on this.

4. "misrepresenting the position in relation to the EU, currency unions and more". I also look forward to seeing evidence on this later on.

Incidentally, if an independence supporter had made the post you made, you would have exploded in fury.

1. He isn't credible.

2. Twitter account. Prompted negative reactions from several SNP members, some of whom post on this forum.

3. Again, on the Wings Twitter account several months ago. Did the "Colkitto" thing.

4. Claimed we'd automatically be members (I had a protracted argument with him in the comment section and he doesn't know what he's talking about, ditto the fundamental legal nature of the union and misrepresented the situation concerning using the pound (in the same way you did, by conflating unilateral use with a currency union.

[xbl]

1. He is.

2. Ah, I don't really use twitter, so I don't follow.

3. I don't see a problem with the analysis.

4. We will. To all of it. We're not going to be leaving the EU at any point. We're going to continue using the pound.

Still, interesting that yet again, you continue to go for evidence free posting. And seems to me that you've realised that he doesn't create nearly as many mistruths as he busts.

[Ad Lib]

1. He is.

2. Ah, I don't really use twitter, so I don't follow.

3. I don't see a problem with the analysis.

4. We will. To all of it. We're not going to be leaving the EU at any point. We're going to continue using the pound.

Still, interesting that yet again, you continue to go for evidence free posting. And seems to me that you've realised that he doesn't create nearly as many mistruths as he busts.

1. No he isn't.

2. Not my problem if you don't use twitter. Except when you do, of course.

3. You don't see a problem with taking one poll from one polling company with one methodology and weighting and comparing it to another and saying "LOOK LOTS OF MOMENTUM"? Really?

4. Not "automatically". There will have to be transitional agreements.

It's not evidence free when there is, uh, evidence. There is evidence that Scheffer is not credible. His thesis was thoroughly discredited by others in the field only weeks later. There is evidence that Wings was transphobic on Twitter. To which other members of this forum can attest (ask ThatBoyRonaldo). There is evidence of misrepresenting polls as momentum. On his Twitter feed if you care to look back far enough. There is evidence that he endorses the "automatically" thesis. Because I argued with him about it on his own fucking website!

[xbl]

1. No he isn't.

2. Not my problem if you don't use twitter. Except when you do, of course.

3. You don't see a problem with taking one poll from one polling company with one methodology and weighting and comparing it to another and saying "LOOK LOTS OF MOMENTUM"? Really?

4. Not "automatically". There will have to be transitional agreements.

It's not evidence free when there is, uh, evidence. There is evidence that Scheffer is not credible. His thesis was thoroughly discredited by others in the field only weeks later. There is evidence that Wings was transphobic on Twitter. To which other members of this forum can attest (ask ThatBoyRonaldo). There is evidence of misrepresenting polls as momentum. On his Twitter feed if you care to look back far enough. There is evidence that he endorses the "automatically" thesis. Because I argued with him about it on his own fucking website!

1. Yes he is.

2. Hence why I said "really".

3. Not really. All polling is meaningless this far out anyway.

4. Will we be sitting outside the EU at any point? No.

And once again, I see evidence free posting. Double standards at work again I see.

[Ad Lib]

1. Yes he is.

2. Hence why I said "really".

3. Not really. All polling is meaningless this far out anyway.

4. Will we be sitting outside the EU at any point? No.

And once again, I see evidence free posting. Double standards at work again I see.

1. No he's not. He's a busted flush whose thesis of co-equal automatic successor statehood has no basis in international law and precedent.

2. You can find out with ease.

3. Then he's being misleading (admittedly like many others) of attributing importance to polls. QED.

4. Different question entirely. Don't shift the goalposts.

[xbl]

1. No he's not. He's a busted flush whose thesis of co-equal automatic successor statehood has no basis in international law and precedent.

2. You can find out with ease.

3. Then he's being misleading (admittedly like many others) of attributing importance to polls. QED.

4. Different question entirely. Don't shift the goalposts.

1. Yes he is. The claims of you and HB regarding his status were debunked.

2. Whatever happened to "evidence please", and "be very specific"? Double standards.

3. "admittedly like many others" Oops. So essentially, independence supporter does it, outrage. Unionist does it, no problem.

4. We are not going to be leaving the EU at any point. No goalpost shifting here.

[Ad Lib]

1. Yes he is. The claims of you and HB regarding his status were debunked.

2. Whatever happened to "evidence please", and "be very specific"? Double standards.

3. "admittedly like many others" Oops. So essentially, independence supporter does it, outrage. Unionist does it, no problem.

4. We are not going to be leaving the EU at any point. No goalpost shifting here.

1. No they weren't. What were they debunked by? Name me the precedent for co-equal successor statehood under international law. Clue: Czechoslovakia is not a correct answer. They were two new states, not co-equal successor states.

2. I'm not going to teach you how to use Twitter. The evidence can be found within a matter of clicks of the very message you referred to me tagging you in.

3. No. my original contention, if you have a memory longer than that of a metaphorical goldfish, was that he counters falsehoods and half-truths with his own. I did not say it was okay when others do it.

4. You are shifting the goalposts. I said that he uttered mistruths about the "automatic" successor-statehood. Not contiguous membership of the EU by whatsoever means. He endorsed a specific account which was incorrect. He also believes that the Declaration of Arbroath is a legal document. He's an embarrassment.